ML19256F565
| ML19256F565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Peoples D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190417 | |
| Download: ML19256F565 (3) | |
Text
/
pn nrQug 8[}
Io UNITED STATES g
- ,(,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sg ja: y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ss /
licy
- 19. 4 o
Docket Nos.: 50-373/374 Mr. D. Louis Peoples Director of Nuclear Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Peoples:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING CONFIRMATORY PIPING ANALYSIS FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 In a telecon held on November 9,1979, with your personnel, L. DelGeorge, et al, we indicated that our Mechanical Engineering Branch has recently instituted a program of performing an independent confirmatory "as built" piping analysis for eech plant undergoing an operating license review.
For LaSalle, this analysis will be performed by our contract personnel at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. The purpose of this independent analysis will be to verify that a piping system, chosen on a sampling basis, meets the applicable ASME Code stress criteria. We do not intend to resolve small differences between our calculated stresses as compared to yours. Only when large discrepancies are found or Code criteria are not met do we intend to take further action.
This program will allow our Mechanical Engineering Branch to verify, on a sampling basis, that you have correctly modeled your piping, have correctly used your computer code and have adequately accounted for "as built" pip-ing systems.
As we related in our telecon, we will require additional detailed information to be supplied for the chosen sampling piping system.
For the LaSalle facility, the piping system chosen was the residual heat removal pipe line, identified as 1RH40BA-12, shown in the FSAR Figure 3.6-12.
The additional information requested are:
(1)
Piping layout and isometric drawings sufficient to model the systems, (2)
Support drawings, 1621 180 7912190 f7
Mr. D. Louis Peoples g,; 1979 (3)
The piping design specifications, (4)
Valve weights and center of gravities locations, (5)
Appropriate response spectra, (6)
Appropriate anchor point movements, and (7)
Any design change notices not yet incorporated into the piping drawings (later design change notices should be forwarded to us).
After we receive this additional information and have time to review the package, we will schedule a site visit in order for the Laboratory personnel to become acquainted.vith the plant and specifically, view the chosen piping system. At that time we can also discuss the piping analysis with your design engineers and decide whether any additional information is necessary.
We will contsct Mr. DelGeorge to make arrangements for this site visit.
As our analysis proceeds, we will also require certain of your analytical resultg for comparative purposes, such as the ASME Code required Design Reports.
We do not expect this issue to delay our input to the Safety Analysis Report and will include our conclusions in a supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report.
Please contact us if you desire any clarification of the information requested.
Sincerely, N. h%
Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management cc: See Next Page 1621 181
cc: Mr. D. Louis Peoples cc: Richard E. Powell, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza 2400 Chicago, Illinois 60670 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of Illinois 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Mr. Roger Walker, Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission P. O. Box 737 Streator, Illinois 61364 1621 182